On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Changing the unit setting would also be a behavioral change. I think
>>> what Bruce is suggesting is that this is simply not worth worrying about
>>> in the back branches.
>
>> It seems pretty strange not to at least document it. And I'm not wild
>> about adding documentation that says "Even though this value purports
>> to be in kilobytes, it's really not", but I guess we can.
>
> Uh, no, the suggestion is to do *nothing* in the back branches. Yes
> they're buggy, but without any field complaints, it's hard to argue that
> anyone much cares. And I agree with Greg Smith that for anyone who does
> care, a behavioral change in a minor release is much harder to deal with
> than a change at a major release.
OK, so I talked to Bruce about this and I guess I've been persuaded
that we should just apply the patch I sent upthread to HEAD and leave
the back-branches broken, for fear of creating an incompatibility.
I'll go do that unless someone wants to argue further...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company